POL00097884
POL00097884
Message
From: Martin Edward:
on behalf of — Martin Edward:
Sent: 26/03/2013 23
To: Paula Vennellsi iH
cc: Alwen Lyons
Subject: Re: Second Sight note from meeting
Sensitivity: Company Confidential
Hi Paula - let's discuss in the morning quickly before you see Alice. Based on the phone call with 2nd Sight I don't think
they have an agenda but rather have just been a bit cack-handed in the way they've handled this read-out. It was clearly
one of those messy meetings which could be intepreted in a number of ways. Their unvarnished account picks up some
of the strands of discussion, whereas James is aiming for the more diplomatic "official" account (which is generally more
helpful to us).
The way Janet drafts up points 1, 2 and 8 below is absolutely crucial, so both Alwen and 2nd sight will be seeking to
speak to her before the final minute is issued to MPs.
Thanks,
Martin
Martin Edwards
Chief of Staff to the Chief Executive
Post Office
On 26 Mar 2013, at 22:18, "Paula Vennells't “} wrote:
I think you are right - we wait for Janet's note.
I'm a bit disturbed by lan's. James seems to be even-handed in his comments, which makes lan's look as
though he had an agenda.
Did James ask lan to do the note? Odd - really it should have come from James initially, rather than SS.
Re Alice, I suggest you tell her you have it but that James has some amends (important she knows as he
may well mention in the future). Therefore she may want to wait for the final version. If she wants to
see it though - no problem at all.
Thx Paula
Sent from my iPhone
On 26 Mar 2013, at 18:39, "Alwen Lyon: wrote:
Paula
jam sure Martin will brief you as he was on the call we have with Second Sight this
afternoon. But I thought you should see the emails below. The original from lan,
annotated by James.
i have put in a call to Janet as she is doing the official note of the meeting and!
am going to discuss her view of how it went tomorrow and get some clarity around
James’ note
POL-0097467
POL00097884
POL00097884
{ know you have a 121 with Alice tomorrow, she hasn’t seen this note as I wanted you to
see it first, but if you want her to see would you let me know and I will send it on, I
wouldn’t want her to think I was keeping anything from her.
My advice would be we wait for Janet’s note before deciding on the way forward.
if you would like to discuss please give me a call, although as I say Martin was on the call
with Second sight
Thanks
Alwen
Alwen Lyons I Company Secretary
<image001.gif>
<image002.png> 148 Old Street, LONDOD 9HO
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png> _alwen.lyons
<image006.gif> @postofficenews
<image007.png>
From: ARBUTHNOT, James !
Sent: 26 March 2013 15:44
To: Susan Crichton
Cc: Alwen Lyons; Simon Baker; Ian Henderson; ‘Ron Warmington’
Subject: Second Sight note from meeting 25 March
Sensitivity: Confidential
Dear Susan,
I have had sight of Ian Henderson’s email to you following the meeting held at
Westminster on 25 March. I would be grateful if you would forward this message
to Ruth X. Barker and Mark R. Davies, neither of whom is known to me, nor do I
have their email addresses, but as they were included in the initial circulation, 1
feel they ought to be able to read my response.
The reason I am writing is that my recollection of the meeting is somewhat
different to his. I plan to circulate the note my office made of the meeting in due
course, but please would you note the following comments from me (in red),
which refer directly to lan Henderson’s points in the email he sent to you, copied
below.
POL-0097467
. There was broad support for the concept of reporting on issues rather
than individual cases — rather than ‘support’, I think I would express this
as ‘understanding’. MPs will, in the end, want to know how their
individual constituent’s case concludes, and whether it can be stated that
their constituent has been wrongly accused.
. The MPs want Second Sight to report on a much wider range of issues in
July than we had planned i.e. not just the Horizon transaction issues. A
consequence of this is that any report in July will be an interim not a final
report — this is not my recollection of what was discussed or agreed at
the meeting. Although the possibility of a July meeting was mooted, and
the possibility that the report that might be presented at that meeting
might be interim in nature, no desire for a wider range of issues to be
reported on was mentioned by MPs.
. There was broad support for the proposal to run a series of tests in the
Model Office replicating the specific scenarios reported by SPMRs — this
was not really discussed. What I heard was that the Model Office was
offered to Second Sight as a way to test processes and the system by the
Post Office, but no express support — or lack of it — for its use was
discussed or agreed.
. Alan Bates reported that a significant number of SPMRs had not accepted
the JFSA / POL agreement and remained concerned about possible
retribution from POL. This has resulted in under reporting of cases and
issues. (This was the first time we had been told about this) — this is true.
I was rather irritated that Alan Bates raised this without warning, and did
so publicly.
. MPs (and JFSA) reported continuing concern about “heavy handed” audit
and investigations processes and the inability within POL to differentiate
between genuine issues of concern reported by SPMRs compared with
suspected fraud or theft. This is causing real hardship to SPMRs and may
lead to suicides. (This was mentioned more than once) — this was the
view coming from the JFSA, not MPs. I do not recall any mention of
suicides at the meeting, but JFSA did raise the point that POL continues
even today to prosecute allegations of theft without the prior
investigation or the tentativeness that this investigation would suggest
might be necessary.
. MPs were pleased to note the personal involvement of Alice Perkins and
Paula Vennells but would like this to be extended within POL to a much
more sympathetic attitude to SPMRs with problems. They felt internal
communication processes within POL were not working well. There was
universal concern about the continuing use of comments such as “we
have total confidence in the Horizon system” which are contrary to the
experience reported by a number of SPMRs — I am unhappy with the way
this is expressed. There was no expression of any views from MPs or their
representatives about internal communications within the Post Office, nor
that the personal involvement of staff beyond senior management ought
to be extended. That the Post Office continues to claim confidence in
Horizon is factually correct, and I emphasized that until cases were put to
POL00097884
POL00097884
POL-0097467
POL00097884
POL00097884
the Post Office which undermined this confidence, the Post Office’s
stance was understandable.
7. In the light of the issues now being looked at by Second Sight, POL
should consider a suspension of all current prosecutions activity until after
July at least — this was not specifically discussed at the meeting, but it
may well follow from the point I make at 5 above.
8. There was widespread support for the view that it is essential the
investigation continues to be supported by POL as it was felt that this is
the best opportunity to really dig into the issues and concerns reported
by SPMRs — as above, a good point. There was, however, concern that
the matter was going on so long and costing POL a lot.
To my mind, the meeting went as well as could be expected. I would not go so
far as to support Ian’s opinion that ‘extensive concern’ was expressed about the
investigation and prosecution processes the Post Office is following. My
impression is that by and large, we listened to what was being presented to us
by Second Sight. Mike Wood and Kevin Barron certainly did mount some robust
questioning, as they should, but to shape this as ‘extensive concern’ is stretching
things a bit, T think.
I shall circulate my briefing in due course, but would be grateful if you would
note my comments above.
Yours ever,
James
Office of the Rt Hon James Arbuthnot, MP
House of Commons
London SW1A GAA
www jamesarbuthnot.com
From: Ian Henderso!
Sent: 26 March 2013 10:25
To: ‘Susan Crichton’
Cc: 'Alwen Lyons’; ‘Simon Baker’; ‘Ruth X Barker’; ‘Mark R Davies’; 'rwarming'
Subject: Meeting with MPs - 25 March 2013 °
Sensitivity: Confidential
CONFIDENTIAL
Susan
The meeting with MPs went reasonably well, however there was robust questioning
from a number of MPs, particularly Mike Wood MP and extensive concern expressed
POL-0097467
about POL investigation and prosecutions processes. Janet Walker will be circulating an
official minute of the meeting in due course. Whilst Shoosmiths were present
throughout, they took no part in the meeting and did not comment at any point.
I attach a copy of the Second Sight Briefing Note that was tabled at the meeting.
Headline points from the meeting were:
1. There was broad support for the concept of reporting on issues rather than
individual cases
2. The MPs want Second Sight to report on a much wider range of issues in July
than we had planned i.e. not just the Horizon transaction issues. A consequence
of this is that any report in July will be an interim not a final report.
3. There was broad support for the proposal to run a series of tests in the Model
Office replicating the specific scenarios reported by SPMRs
4. Alan Bates reported that a significant number of SPMRs had not accepted the
JFSA / POL agreement and remained concerned about possible retribution from
POL. This has resulted in under reporting of cases and issues. (This was the first
time we had been told about this)
5. MPs (and JFSA) reported continuing concern about “heavy handed” audit and
investigations processes and the inability within POL to differentiate between
genuine issues of concern reported by SPMRs compared with suspected fraud
or theft. This is causing real hardship to SPMRs and may lead to suicides. (This
was mentioned more than once)
6. MPs were pleased to note the personal involvement of Alice Perkins and Paula
Vennells but would like this to be extended within POL to a much more
sympathetic attitude to SPMRs with problems. They felt internal communication
processes within POL were not working well. There was universal concern about
the continuing use of comments such as “we have total confidence in the
Horizon system” which are contrary to the experience reported by a number of
SPMRs.
7. Inthe light of the issues now being looked at by Second Sight, POL should
consider a suspension of all current prosecutions activity until after July at least
8. There was widespread support for the view that it is essential the investigation
continues to be supported by POL as it was felt that this is the best opportunity
to really dig into the issues and concerns reported by SPMRs.
I will circulate Janet Walkers note of the meeting as soon as I receive it
With best wishes
Ian R Henderson CCE CISA FCA
Advanced Forensics - London, UK
Forensic computing expert witness and electronic disclosure
specialist
Bmail: irhf "GRO
Website: http://advancedforensics.com
LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/forensicgod
Twitter: http://twitter.com/forensicgod
POL00097884
POL00097884
POL-0097467
POL00097884
POL00097884
CONFIDENTIALITY. This email and any attachments are confidential and
may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please notify me at irh™ and delete the email
and any attachments.
POL-0097467